BOMA lobbyist blasts 'attack on real estate.' (Building Owners and Managers Association criticizes federal building regulations)

"It's bad enough that the building industry is virtually under attack by regulations laws and codes on every level; the timing - just as the industry is starting to get back on its feet again - is the worst possible," said James C. Dinegar, vice president of Government Affairs for BOMA International in Washington, D.C., before 300 real estate professionals at a luncheon sponsored by The Building Owner's and Managers' Association of Greater New York, Inc.

"We learned from the asbestos flap that never again will we not respond, or accept the image as being the big bad landlord," he continued, in a speech which anticipated potential new areas of confrontration and legislation, while advising owners and managers on BOMA's positions on several hotly contested areas - including ADA, the 1992 Energy Efficiency Act, Indoor Air Quality and Inside Wiring.

In the spirit that trends originate in California, Dinegar warned of the seriousness with which the Department of Justice takes its charge of enforcing ADA legislation. "The California Justice Department has 15 new litigators full-time with complete enforcement capabilities...-no settlements, full prosecution powers."

"The basic problem with many of these law is that the legislators do not do the science. It is our job to martial as much information as possible to present our case, and attack and solve the problem at the source."

Dinegar, who sees an essential part of his job as "keeping you informed," said that BOMA was issuing a special report on the phase-out of the florescent light bulbs, and pointed to recent legislation as an excellent example of "not doing the science." A California state law - enacted to protect the environment - stated that a business can only throw out 24 lights bulbs a day and florescent light bulbs cannot be thrown out at all, even though 75 watt, 8 ft-bulbs must be replaced by this November to comply with the 1992 Energy Efficiency Act. Firms are therefore expending $.35 per light bulb for disposal services to bury the bulbs. "Then the mercury from the bulbs eventually leaks into the ground water and causes a whole host of additional problems," said the government affairs specialist.

Getting into the Cable Business

Another potential area of contention which owners and managers must prepare for now involves the ownership of the wiring in a building, which through interpretations of the ruling enforcing the break up of the telephone company, is staring to result in ownership of the wiring reverting back to the owners. Once again, California is a test case, and building owners there now own the cable.

The bad news is that the owners liability exposure is enormous. When the "phone company" owned the cabling, its greatest liability was equivalent to the loss of one month's phone bill. "Yet, for example, if the phone lines supporting a trading operation in your building breaks down, there is no cap on an owner's liability, and you could be in for the loss of an entire day's trading operations...millions of dollars," he explained.

BOMA has filed petitions with the FCC to say "back off...phase this in so we have time to figure this out," Dinegar said, adding that for a fee, Pacific Bell - the old "phone company" - will now assume responsibility.

Dinegar continued, "We now have an opportunity to call the shots. We're ready to take the responsibility, but on our terms. If we are to be owners of the inside wiring, then we get to charge an access fee." An FCC ruling is expected imminently.

The Reality of Sick Buildings/Indoor

Air Quality

The cost of enforcing the pending Indoor Air Quality legislation is staggering - $8 billion directly out of owners pockets, at the least, Dinegar warned, and so it is essential that we have the legislators "attack the problem at the source."

Drawing a parallel to the asbestos frenzy of the '80s, he said, "we have found out that with asbestos, it could create even more problems in abatement. Now the press has jumped on sick building syndrome. A sick building is defined if 20 percent of the tenants complain. But you're on the job immediately if there is one, two or three complaints. So again we are saying, give us the facts and we'll run like crazy to improve the indoor air situation in any given building."

And, he pointed out, the current laws, again, are not grounded in scientifically supported research. "Or logic, in some cases. Let's face reality. The current laws being proposed simply miss the point. The Kennedy bill, which recommends opening the windows to ventilate with fresh air does not take into account that there is no fresh air for example, in Houston in mid-summer or Miami, with its 95 percent humidity."

Attacking at the source means changing carpet, refraining from using certain chemicals in cleaning, and much more. "But don't force us into heavy record-keeping and extraordinary installation of HVAC systems because of a problem that does not originate with the HVAC system," the lobbyist continued.

Perception of the problem is also a problem, he stated. The way the press has seized on the issue fails to recognize that tenants can also be the source of their own discomfort - stacking dusty magazines over air return registers, pouring coffee grinds into plants, failing to dispose of trash properly and over-watering plants.

"We have a responsibility to respond to OSHA's comments on the Indoor Air Quality legislation and you are the source of input and support," he stated. "You've made an investment in BOMA; participate, send us your views, and let that investment pay you back."